Customer Reviews

The Dominion of War: Empire and Liberty in North America, 1500-2000

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a very insightful account of American history in the chord of imperial expansion, telling the story that doesn't quite appear in standard accounts. We are so habituated to the American narrative that we forget the terrible legacy of expansionism, and its endless betrayals and ethnic cleansing. One useful feature of the account is to start in the sixteenth century, and show the change that came over the relations of settlers and Native Indians. A further key is to include the complexities of the Seven Years War to that of the American Revolution, showing their direct connection (the same for the Mexican-American War and the Civil War). The story of William Penn and his pacifism and good relations with the Indians is like a forgotten echo, and, as with this case, it is important to see how much of our history is a story of the defeat of good intentions as the lowest common denominator of imperial conquest seems to take over. The case of Penn and Pennsylvannia is a reminder of what might/should/could have been, leaving no excuse for the teleological fallacies of the great American narrative.

As is well known, American leaders tend to justify wars by explaining them as operations in defense of liberty and democracy. This important book examines that notion through the impact of several historically key men on North America.

They include Samuel de Champlain, whose missionizing and choosing up sides in various Indian wars set the stage for "the most widespread and destructive warfare in North American history"; William Penn, whose sincere efforts to coexist peacefully with the Indians degenerated into the unapologetic expansionism of his heirs; George Washington, who foresaw so many of the dangers of military intervention abroad; the tempestuous and bullying Andrew Jackson, who owned slaves, relocated thousands of Indians west of the Mississippi, and set the stage for ongoing wars of conquest in the name of freedom and liberty (and who had the gall to argue that relocating the Indians was "not only liberal, but generous"); Ulysses Grant, reluctant participant in the land-grabbing war with Mexico, a man who clearly understood that such aggressive moves always bring punishing consequences; the grandstanding Douglas MacArthur, aging momma's boy and self-appointed missionary of Christianity and liberty, finally relieved of command by Truman for suggesting that the United States nuke China; and Colin Powell, whose highly distinguished military career ran parallel with a habit of doing what he was told while silencing his doubts--doubts that nearly always turned out to be realistically based. "I had been conditioned to believe in the wisdom of my superiors...."

The authors of this book tell a balanced tale without heavy-handed recourse to the lessons unlearned from history, but the lessons stand out anyway: the conquest of the Phillipines, for example, so many of whose citizens died in the American attempt to liberate them in a bloody, exhausting campaign that only ended when the occupation did. Concentration camps and torture inflicted by MacArthur's soldiers stained these attempts to mold a nation's fate from above, as did Roosevelt's propagandistic declaration that the insurrection was over (July 4, 1902) when in fact it would not end for many years.

A poignant event might well give food for thought: Woodrow Wilson's 1916 draft of a speech to Congress, which stated that "it shall not lie with American people to dictate to another people what their government shall be or what use they shall have or what persons they shall encourage or favor." Reviewing the speech, Secretary of State Robert Lansing wrote: "Haiti, S. Domingo, Nicaragua, Panama" in the margin by way of comment (he might have added Cuba, Mexico, and the Phillipines), whereupon Wilson gave up on the speech, a decision that may well mark a significant difference between the politics of his time and our own.

Anderson and Cayton make the controversial thesis that Americans use the themes of liberty and freedom for their own expansionist aims. The first two chapters of the book, the authors describe how the European powers cooperated with the Native Americans in order to acheive their aims. But after the Seven Years War, the colonists viewed British cooperation with natives as impeding their drive westward. During the Revolutionary War, Americans ethnically cleansed thousands of Native Americans in order to defend their individual rights to expand westward. George Washington tried tired to slowly assimilate Native Americans to embrace ideas of freedom and democracy, but his plans fell apart due to the violent actions by Scotch-Irish settlers and later by Andrew Jackson's policies in the western borderlands. Grant tried to implement Washington's program after the Civil War, but did nothing to prevent the expulsion of the Native Americans from their lands. The same policies that Washington and Grant used on the Native Americans expanded to the Phillippines and Cuba in which the interests of these citizens were subordinated to the wishes of the United States. MacArthur followed similiar actions in his dealings with the Japanese after the Second World War in which he repressed some Japanese publications because they were against the interests of the United States. The main weakness of this book is that the first two chapters of the book does not flow with the remaining chapters and that the authors don't compare the American empire with its European counterparts in the nineteenth century. Otherwise this book strongly disputes writings by the likes of William Kristol on the right, and Samantha Powers on the left, that advocate the use of American military force in order to spread individual freedom.

Starting with the 1st French efforts to trade in North America, the authors argue that our self-image as peace-loving people who only fight when left no alternative, is often at odds with the facts. Second recurring theme is how military victories can produce unforeseen problems. Among the founding fathers, even those best disposed to the Indians, who wanted treaty-settlements instead of wars, assumed that they would either assimilate or move west. The War with Mexico and Spanish-American War are examples of US aggression that few would dispute. A very intriguing chapter describes Washington DC's 1930 Greco-Roman monuments as efforts to condition isolationist Americans to possibility of World War.
Sound crazy? Think of the movies Shane, High Noon, and Sgt. York-- always the peace-loving hero is pushed into a [satisfying] explosion of righteous violence. See also Anderson's The War That Made America; short history of French & Indian War

A recurring theme noticed by the American expatriate community is the vast difference in how foreigners view America and how Americans view themselves, especially in regards to how America has dealt with other countries. In the realm of literature and history, there have been few works that have bridged this divide, and most of them dealt with narrow topics; such as US - Mexico relation, or US - Japan relations in the 20th century. This book is probably one of the few that offers a long-term historical analysis of America's foreign policy from colonial days to the end of the 20th century. Starting from the early 1500s and ending with the 20th century, the book examines America's territorial and economic expansion by tracing the lives and careers of several famous / infamous military leaders. Most are American, such as Colin Powell and George Washington. There are also some non-Americans, such as Champlain and General Santa Anna. But all lead careers that defined the destiny of America.

The book reads very quickly, and the authors are objective in their style. The authors have produced a great history book from the foundations of several biographies. Probably the best feature of this book is its critical examination of how war can and often does destroy both victor and vanquished. This point is illustrates several times in this book, using both England and the US as examples of victors in war who went on to pay dearly later on. I recommend reading this book.

Excellent explanation of progression of America's wars and how each impacted the United States and left causes for the next. Easy to read but very detailed.

Fred Anderson has written with grace and authority about the involvement of American colonials with their British sovereign in contesting and destroying the French colonial empire in the West during the Seven Years War. This work serves brilliantly in the first four chapters of this flawed work to explain the role of warfare in shaping the American foundation and creation. The authors get into trouble when they attempt to explain how the use of war has been a permanent theme in American history. We are a nation founded in revolutionary war, we are a nation founded as a Slave Republic, two of the more repugnant features of human politics and organization. From that perspective one might argue that we have been remarkably successful in avoiding becoming an imperial aggressor on an even more extensive scale. The authors fail to explain or even address why it is that the United States voluntarily disarmed in 1865 and in 1919 when we had military forces that could easily have conquered Canada and Mexico, annexed the Caribbean islands and much more. Why did we not? They do not ask the question.
As this book was written in the earlier stages of our latest adventure in Iraq, it is understandable why they are attempting to use war to explain a policy that our government has not successfully or convincingly explained to us. But this book does not do a better job. Too bad because the wars they have explained are no longer with us and the one that is will remain a mystery to you when you finish this deeply flawed but occasionally brilliant book.

A monumental synthesis, a towering, brave work of beautifully written and exhaustively studied history - and this is all the reception it gets? This should be required reading for every American, precisely because it may be debatable or controversial in its points or selections. There is no question in my mind that this magnificent book will stand ever larger in history, as its profound yet caustic thesis receives its next confirmation by the imperial aggression by the national security monolith we have inherited.

I was excited about starting this book when I bought it because I found its structure (explaining how much war has affected American history by using the stories of 9 individuals) to be unique but I just couldn't get into it and gave up after 330 pages. Their thesis just couldn't be held together by the different stories and it reads more like a history book about the individuals.

Good book for picking up useless knowledge not for stimulating the mind.